Re: [HACKERS] Table Partitioning is in 8.1

2005-09-23 Thread Simon Riggs
On Thu, 2005-09-22 at 14:37 -0500, Jim C. Nasby wrote: > On Thu, Sep 22, 2005 at 10:11:50AM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: > > On Wed, 2005-09-21 at 15:39 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > > Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > Is it possible that the Release Notes do not fully explain the > > > > C

Re: [HACKERS] Table Partitioning is in 8.1

2005-09-22 Thread Bruce Momjian
Simon Riggs wrote: > On Wed, 2005-09-21 at 15:39 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Is it possible that the Release Notes do not fully explain the > > > Constraint Exclusion feature? Or is it the consensus that it works but > > > not quite well enough to make a

Re: [HACKERS] Table Partitioning is in 8.1

2005-09-22 Thread Bruce Momjian
Word "basic" added. --- Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > > > On reflection, the only changes I suggest are: > > > > 1) the phrase "This allows for a type of table partitioning" have the > > word "basic" inserted within it to bec

Re: [HACKERS] Table Partitioning is in 8.1

2005-09-22 Thread Joshua D. Drake
On reflection, the only changes I suggest are: 1) the phrase "This allows for a type of table partitioning" have the word "basic" inserted within it to become: "This allows for a basic type of table partitioning" How about just: Initial support for table partitioning. Yes it is non-committal

Re: [HACKERS] Table Partitioning is in 8.1

2005-09-22 Thread Jim C. Nasby
On Thu, Sep 22, 2005 at 10:11:50AM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: > On Wed, 2005-09-21 at 15:39 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Is it possible that the Release Notes do not fully explain the > > > Constraint Exclusion feature? Or is it the consensus that it works

Re: [HACKERS] Table Partitioning is in 8.1

2005-09-22 Thread Simon Riggs
On Wed, 2005-09-21 at 15:39 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Is it possible that the Release Notes do not fully explain the > > Constraint Exclusion feature? Or is it the consensus that it works but > > not quite well enough to make a song and dance about yet? >

Re: [HACKERS] Table Partitioning is in 8.1

2005-09-21 Thread Hannu Krosing
On K, 2005-09-21 at 15:39 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Is it possible that the Release Notes do not fully explain the > > Constraint Exclusion feature? Or is it the consensus that it works but > > not quite well enough to make a song and dance about yet? > >

Re: [HACKERS] Table Partitioning is in 8.1

2005-09-21 Thread Hannu Krosing
On K, 2005-09-21 at 18:10 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: > Table Partitioning is in 8.1 > > I've just read Peter Eisentraut's presentation to the Dutch gov (very > good BTW). On the last page I read that Table Partitioning is a future > for PostgreSQLwhich is strange because Constraint Exclusion is

Re: [HACKERS] Table Partitioning is in 8.1

2005-09-21 Thread Tom Lane
Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Is it possible that the Release Notes do not fully explain the > Constraint Exclusion feature? Or is it the consensus that it works but > not quite well enough to make a song and dance about yet? I hardly think that the existing constraint-exclusion code i

Re: [HACKERS] Table Partitioning is in 8.1

2005-09-21 Thread Martijn van Oosterhout
On Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at 06:10:15PM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: > Table Partitioning is in 8.1 > > I've just read Peter Eisentraut's presentation to the Dutch gov (very > good BTW). On the last page I read that Table Partitioning is a future > for PostgreSQLwhich is strange because Constraint Exc